Canon 9000F vs Dedicated 35mm scanner?

[william_p]

<p>I've recently sold my Mamiya RB67 on, to help fund a Canon 6D and because I rarely used it. I've got a Canon EOS-3, so I will continue to shoot 35mm, simply because the camera is amazing, I enjoy 35mm film, I prefer b&w film to b&w digital and my lenses can be mounted on both. My question is... Should I keep my Canon 9000F to scan 35mm or sell it on and get a dedicated 35mm scanner?<br /><br />I don't scan documents and I print my work digitally, even if it's been shot on film and I doubt I'll go back to Medium Format, simply because having too many cameras stifles me, so the scanner would only be used for 35mm film.<br>

I realise there's a lot of variations in dedicated scanners and you get what you pay for. Canon 9000F's in used condition sell for about £170 online, so say the prices are inflated and after postage, charges and packaging, I get £100 for it (or put funds towards it, so I have £100 to spend), would a dedicated scanner, in this price range be a better option than the 9000f?<br>

Would the film be held flatter?<br>

Would I get results that are just as sharp or sharper?<br>

Would it scan faster?<br>

Would it be less of a faff on loading the film?<br>

Would it come with dust removal software? for the off chance I might shoot colour film.<br>

Would it be as easy to clean?<br>

Would it be easier to keep dust out of?</p>

<p>I ask, because in my mind, something that is tailor made for a job will out perform something that covers a wide basis of jobs. Jack of all trades master of none? I also find the film is rarely flat in the 9000F and it takes up a lot of room, in comparison.</p>

<p>If in your opinion a dedicated scanner would be better for me, is there any you would recommend? I would like a scanner that can scan up to 4800dpi. It will only be used whilst I am at my desktop PC, so portability isn't an issue. I would rather select the scanning area etc through my pc monitor, than on a built in screen.</p>

<p>I think I have covered all of my concerns and provided all the information, for people to be able to offer their opinion, but if not, please ask.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Here was my effort at a comparison of the Canoscan 9000F to an older Canoscan film scanner:<br>

http://www.photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00b9l6 <br>

The discussion also makes a number of points, valid or not.</p>

[william_p]

Oh wow, that was quite interesting. I never would have thought an older dedicated scanner, could out perform the 9000f

so much on sharpness. I obviously haven't got the funds to be able to afford a top of the range scanner, but what do

people think of the plustek opticfilm 8200i? It's getting good reviews, but how about in comparison to the 9000f? or can

anyone point me to a in depth review? I realise it's 150% more expensive than I said I'd be spending.

[JDMvW]

<p>Mind you, I'm reasonably happy with my 9000F. It is very fast and I use it a lot for scanning in text for recognition and pdf.</p>

<p>However, the older 9950F actually was superior, but I broke something that affected the platen scanning, but I am trying to find some table space so I can still use the larger film scanning area on it (4x5).<br /> I keep an old G4 Mac with super SCSI still going to keep the old Canoscan FS4000 working for 35mm film (with VueScan), though. If you can solve the SCSI interface problem it's one of the cheaper (and slower) high-quality (4000 ppi) film scanners, when you can find one.</p>

<p>The interface problem is the major hurdle here; but for software, VueScan will work with every scanner I've ever tried it with, including ancient Hewlett-Packard flatbeds. So in looking for a older scanner, there is a good chance you can use it if you can hook it up.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Les, I think more on the Coolscans would be welcome. I've been looking from time to time on eBay, but at the moment, my 4000FS still works. If I buy new CPU hardware, I may, just from table space questions, have to finally retire it. I know that some of the Coolscans use firewire, and I could hook those up to newer computers.</p>

<p>Prices don't look bad, but there are so many models I have trouble telling what does what and at what level.</p>

[william_p]

<p>Thanks for the input, but I've decided to stick with my canon 9000f, until a time when it actually needs replacing. I can see the dedicated scanners are better, but I don't think I'm ready to rule out medium format for good. I doubt I will go back, but it's too much of a definite if I get a dedicated scanner and I really cannot afford a dedicated scanner, that can scan 120 as well. I think I will do some research into getting the best out of scanning, and improve my technique, rather than upgrade my hardware.</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>Many of us digicopy our slides and black and white negs using a dedicated copying kit with a good quality macro lens and 20MP+ FF DSLR. In my opinion, this is the best choice for anyone who wants to do a lot of copying. Color balance is easy, and the speed is much greater, and images can then be directly manipulated in Lightroom or PSD. Certainly much superior to a flat bed - in my opinion better than my Canoscan 4000FS dedicated 35mm scanner too. If you have this kind of kit then you need never worry about software and drivers becoming too old and not supported. If you do a search here on PNet you can find further discussions of this approach. The 9000F will still be useful for contact sheets and MF scanning.</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>It's not an opinion: as far as I am concerned it is a fact, but I haven't posted it cause I can't be bothered. Sorry if it offends you somehow.</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>Yes, it is indeed tragic. Some of us don't spend our lives doing tests - we take photos. My experience is what tells me this - you chose to doubt it. Just because I have not published the results does not mean they are not true. You have plenty of things you accept because your experience tell you so, I'm sure.</p>